Sure. Or they will decide that they’ll take advantage of the lack of OEBLILHMD-friendly businesses and make their money that way.
I agree with you completely. This is where my devil’s advocacy breaks down. People are sheep–they won’t change their behavior, no matter how much they claim to want to, without some impetus. (Not surprisingly, this is where Lib and I disagree as well. I’m a fan of big goverment, which I think is incomprehensible to him.)
I guess for me the line is drawn at the small business level. If you are “open to the public,” you should (IMO) be truly open to the public–all public. And, again IMO, the social construct called “government” should enforce that. But I can come up with no other justification for that belief than my personal morality. Good 'nuff.
Libertarianism does not oppose government intervention on any scale — even humongous huge grand great awesome overwhelming guns-a-blazin’ Katy-bar-the-door intervention — when it is for the purpose of supressing coercion and fraud.
Listen carefully, Poly, as a friend who respects me if nothing else, because though I’ve said this many times, I believe you either have not seen it or left it unconsidered: if we thought everybody was peaceful and honest, we would be anarchists.
Got it?
It is because people are not peaceful and honest that a government is necessary to provide a context of peace and honesty.
It is a myth that Libertarians favor a “small government”. People who favor a small government are minarchists.
We favor a government that is exactly as large (or as small) as it needs to be to supress coercion and fraud.
Got it. Thank you, quite sincerely, for the clarification. I am now equipped to understand much more clearly some of the points which you have made in the past which confused me. I should know better than to read my impressions of an ideology or other metastructure into other people’s posts – God knows I’ve raved enough times about it being done – and I do apologize.
Given that clarification, however, are we in agreement that there can be a breadth of views among fair-minded people on how much government intervention for the prevention of offenses against the person is appropriate? Consider, for example, the concept of a “company town” (now largely outdated, but a valid question at the time and perhaps again in future). If one person is the sole employer (or effective decision-maker of the corporation that is the sole employer, the more likely scenario which amounts to the same thing), is it coercion for him to refuse to enter into collective bargaining? If not, does it become so if he owns the house occupied by the employee and can threaten eviction? If he owns the only store(s) in town? The question of what constitutes coercion or fraud gets a bit less than clear, IMHO.
It depends on whether the guy who’s the sole employer is allowed to supress the freedom of others to start businesses of their own. If it is an antilibertarian context, i.e., he has a lawmaker in his pocket who lends legislative and moral support to stifle competition, then the entire context is a coercive one. But if a man is free to leave the employ of the sole employer and start a business of his own, then there is no coercion if the sole employer refuses to enter into collective bargaining. Keep in mind, however, that his employees, who you have said comprise the whole town, want to form a voluntary union operating on their own time without contractual lien, then if they decide not to work, the sole employer will have to close his plant down.
Rights are an attribute of property. Therefore, the owner of the house may eject anyone, absent a contractual lien. However, there is nothing to prevent the formation of a tenants union either. You see, in a libertarian context, that is, one that is free of coercion (read initiated force) and fraud, it behooves people to cooperate, since all relations are entirely voluntary.
See if you can apply the Noncoercion Principle to see how his only store in town might have to close down if he is too great an asshole. (Remember, no Senator friend to call for favor.)
Only when you turn your focus from the central point. Property. Your mind, your body, and your possessions. Libertarianly, freedom means freedom from coercion and fraud, and is the basis of all rights. It is the right that everyone has, you, the sole employer, and all your neighbors (so long as they, of course, are peaceful and honest).
You raise an interesting example Libertarian. Some good thoughtful stuff. Personally, I don’t think it should work even in an ideal situation, but for the sake of argument I’m going to let that pass. Instead, i’m going to bring up some theoreticals.
Let’s bring up the example of the company town, ideal libertarian government, no outside force or coercion place on the relations between employer and employed. Ok? ok.
First problem I see. So the employee no longer wants to wrok for the employer. What if there is no other place to work. Blacklisting by the employer. What if they don’t have access to transportation to leave town, maybe they were born there? What if they are on an isolated island? How do you resolve those problems? Do you insits that the employer provide for them? Or do you let them starve? Or what is the other option.
Second one. Familly. What if the person has family they can not leave behind? Are work obligations supposed to take precedence over family?
And then just a simple question. When historically, employers would pay people lousy wages, the workers would demand higher wages, and the employers would bring in thugs to kill the workers, where do you stand? Was it the employers right? Did the workers at that point have a right to strike? Where should they have turned for help?
you seem to me to believe that market forces will eliminate discriminationm, because those that discriminate upon a basis other than criteria that directly benifit their business will not compete sufficeintly well.
as you have noted, a business may fire someone for any reason they please. they can make a reason up if they are disallowed from using the real reason [such as race/religion/ethnicity/gender/age/etc].
and yet, even though business is nearly free in this aspect, discrimination on non-job skill criteria still exists and flourishes. people still get promoted on the basis of cronyism, good-old-boy networkism, and race and gender everywhere and everyday.
i know of many cases of transsexuals getting fired becasue they are transsexual. they frequently excelled at their jobs. but when they transitioned they were fired. this did not help the company in question. they lost a valuable and loyal employee.
there are cities and counties and even states that are outlawing job and housing discrimination against transgendered. this will benefit not only the transgendered individuals, but all of society and business. just one example of how this will be so: those that are capable of working and yet cannot get work because they are discriminated against across the board still have to exist. many will then go into lives of crime to feed themselves. when these people can instead get jobs, everyone has benefited.
